CBTI Summary
Consort map
Demographic information
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 3581 | control, N = 1791 | treatment, N = 1791 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
age | 358 | 36.34 ± 13.94 (18 - 73) | 35.95 ± 13.84 (18 - 73) | 36.72 ± 14.07 (18 - 71) | 0.599 |
gender | 358 | 0.792 | |||
female | 286 (80%) | 142 (79%) | 144 (80%) | ||
male | 72 (20%) | 37 (21%) | 35 (20%) | ||
occupation | 358 | 0.658 | |||
civil | 13 (3.6%) | 4 (2.2%) | 9 (5.0%) | ||
clerk | 57 (16%) | 30 (17%) | 27 (15%) | ||
craft | 12 (3.4%) | 8 (4.5%) | 4 (2.2%) | ||
homemaker | 26 (7.3%) | 14 (7.8%) | 12 (6.7%) | ||
manager | 28 (7.8%) | 16 (8.9%) | 12 (6.7%) | ||
other | 15 (4.2%) | 5 (2.8%) | 10 (5.6%) | ||
professional | 39 (11%) | 16 (8.9%) | 23 (13%) | ||
retired | 21 (5.9%) | 10 (5.6%) | 11 (6.1%) | ||
service | 12 (3.4%) | 7 (3.9%) | 5 (2.8%) | ||
student | 119 (33%) | 60 (34%) | 59 (33%) | ||
unemploy | 16 (4.5%) | 9 (5.0%) | 7 (3.9%) | ||
marital | 358 | 0.652 | |||
divorced | 14 (3.9%) | 5 (2.8%) | 9 (5.0%) | ||
married | 97 (27%) | 51 (28%) | 46 (26%) | ||
other | 2 (0.6%) | 1 (0.6%) | 1 (0.6%) | ||
separated | 5 (1.4%) | 1 (0.6%) | 4 (2.2%) | ||
single | 235 (66%) | 119 (66%) | 116 (65%) | ||
widowed | 5 (1.4%) | 2 (1.1%) | 3 (1.7%) | ||
marital_r | 358 | 0.252 | |||
married | 97 (27%) | 51 (28%) | 46 (26%) | ||
other | 26 (7.3%) | 9 (5.0%) | 17 (9.5%) | ||
single | 235 (66%) | 119 (66%) | 116 (65%) | ||
education | 358 | 0.914 | |||
post-secondary | 52 (15%) | 28 (16%) | 24 (13%) | ||
primary | 2 (0.6%) | 1 (0.6%) | 1 (0.6%) | ||
secondary | 50 (14%) | 24 (13%) | 26 (15%) | ||
university | 254 (71%) | 126 (70%) | 128 (72%) | ||
education_r | 358 | 0.819 | |||
post-secondary | 52 (15%) | 28 (16%) | 24 (13%) | ||
secondary or below | 52 (15%) | 25 (14%) | 27 (15%) | ||
university | 254 (71%) | 126 (70%) | 128 (72%) | ||
family_income | 358 | 0.502 | |||
0_10000 | 56 (16%) | 27 (15%) | 29 (16%) | ||
10001_20000 | 75 (21%) | 38 (21%) | 37 (21%) | ||
20001_30000 | 73 (20%) | 42 (23%) | 31 (17%) | ||
30001_40000 | 60 (17%) | 31 (17%) | 29 (16%) | ||
40000_above | 94 (26%) | 41 (23%) | 53 (30%) | ||
religion | 358 | 0.110 | |||
buddhism | 16 (4.5%) | 7 (3.9%) | 9 (5.0%) | ||
catholic | 17 (4.7%) | 11 (6.1%) | 6 (3.4%) | ||
christianity | 73 (20%) | 30 (17%) | 43 (24%) | ||
nil | 248 (69%) | 130 (73%) | 118 (66%) | ||
other | 3 (0.8%) | 0 (0%) | 3 (1.7%) | ||
taoism | 1 (0.3%) | 1 (0.6%) | 0 (0%) | ||
religion_r | 358 | 0.234 | |||
buddhism | 16 (4.5%) | 7 (3.9%) | 9 (5.0%) | ||
catholic | 17 (4.7%) | 11 (6.1%) | 6 (3.4%) | ||
christianity | 73 (20%) | 30 (17%) | 43 (24%) | ||
nil | 248 (69%) | 130 (73%) | 118 (66%) | ||
other | 4 (1.1%) | 1 (0.6%) | 3 (1.7%) | ||
source | 358 | 0.233 | |||
bokss | 15 (4.2%) | 11 (6.1%) | 4 (2.2%) | ||
131 (37%) | 63 (35%) | 68 (38%) | |||
12 (3.4%) | 7 (3.9%) | 5 (2.8%) | |||
other | 66 (18%) | 28 (16%) | 38 (21%) | ||
refresh | 134 (37%) | 70 (39%) | 64 (36%) | ||
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test | |||||
Measurement
Table
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 3581 | control, N = 1791 | treatment, N = 1791 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
isi | 358 | 13.47 ± 3.37 (8 - 21) | 13.53 ± 3.33 (8 - 21) | 13.40 ± 3.42 (8 - 21) | 0.719 |
who | 358 | 9.90 ± 3.74 (0 - 21) | 9.82 ± 3.71 (1 - 20) | 9.98 ± 3.77 (0 - 21) | 0.682 |
phq | 358 | 8.51 ± 5.01 (0 - 25) | 8.21 ± 4.98 (0 - 21) | 8.80 ± 5.03 (0 - 25) | 0.264 |
gad | 358 | 7.78 ± 5.12 (0 - 21) | 7.54 ± 5.03 (0 - 21) | 8.02 ± 5.21 (0 - 21) | 0.376 |
wsas | 358 | 16.73 ± 9.85 (0 - 40) | 16.77 ± 9.70 (0 - 39) | 16.69 ± 10.03 (0 - 40) | 0.936 |
shps_arousal | 358 | 3.10 ± 0.69 (1 - 5) | 3.02 ± 0.68 (1 - 5) | 3.18 ± 0.69 (1 - 5) | 0.025 |
shps_schedule | 358 | 3.55 ± 0.87 (1 - 6) | 3.53 ± 0.81 (2 - 6) | 3.58 ± 0.93 (1 - 6) | 0.653 |
shps_behavior | 358 | 2.05 ± 0.66 (1 - 4) | 1.99 ± 0.61 (1 - 4) | 2.12 ± 0.71 (1 - 4) | 0.059 |
shps_environment | 358 | 2.30 ± 0.82 (1 - 5) | 2.33 ± 0.84 (1 - 5) | 2.27 ± 0.80 (1 - 5) | 0.473 |
dbas_consequence | 358 | 6.61 ± 1.75 (1 - 10) | 6.59 ± 1.82 (1 - 10) | 6.64 ± 1.68 (1 - 10) | 0.772 |
dbas_worry | 358 | 14.37 ± 3.23 (3 - 20) | 14.20 ± 3.35 (3 - 20) | 14.54 ± 3.11 (3 - 20) | 0.319 |
dbas_expectation | 358 | 7.03 ± 2.14 (1 - 10) | 7.17 ± 2.09 (1 - 10) | 6.89 ± 2.19 (1 - 10) | 0.209 |
dbas_medication | 358 | 3.19 ± 2.07 (0 - 9) | 3.15 ± 2.04 (0 - 9) | 3.24 ± 2.09 (0 - 9) | 0.683 |
psas_somatic | 358 | 1.88 ± 0.69 (1 - 5) | 1.86 ± 0.66 (1 - 4) | 1.91 ± 0.71 (1 - 5) | 0.539 |
psas_cognitive | 358 | 2.92 ± 0.85 (1 - 5) | 2.87 ± 0.84 (1 - 5) | 2.97 ± 0.86 (1 - 5) | 0.270 |
psqi_global | 358 | 10.87 ± 3.02 (2 - 19) | 10.72 ± 3.03 (4 - 17) | 11.01 ± 3.00 (2 - 19) | 0.363 |
mic_attention | 358 | 1.36 ± 0.72 (0 - 3) | 1.30 ± 0.71 (0 - 3) | 1.42 ± 0.73 (0 - 3) | 0.110 |
mic_executive | 358 | 1.31 ± 0.76 (0 - 3) | 1.28 ± 0.77 (0 - 3) | 1.35 ± 0.76 (0 - 3) | 0.406 |
mic_memory | 358 | 1.37 ± 0.73 (0 - 3) | 1.33 ± 0.75 (0 - 3) | 1.40 ± 0.71 (0 - 3) | 0.397 |
nb_pcs | 358 | 46.27 ± 8.63 (17 - 65) | 46.33 ± 8.91 (17 - 63) | 46.20 ± 8.38 (21 - 65) | 0.879 |
nb_mcs | 358 | 39.94 ± 9.95 (8 - 65) | 39.90 ± 9.78 (8 - 62) | 39.98 ± 10.14 (8 - 65) | 0.935 |
1Mean ± SD (Range) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test | |||||
Plot
Data analysis
Table
Group | Characteristic | Beta | SE1 | 95% CI1 | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
isi | (Intercept) | 13.5 | 0.286 | 13.0, 14.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.128 | 0.404 | -0.920, 0.663 | 0.751 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -2.46 | 0.323 | -3.09, -1.82 | 0.000 | |
3rd | -2.84 | 0.331 | -3.49, -2.19 | 0.000 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -2.96 | 0.486 | -3.92, -2.01 | 0.000 | |
treatment * 3rd | -2.99 | 0.496 | -3.97, -2.02 | 0.000 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.260 | ||||
who | (Intercept) | 9.82 | 0.305 | 9.22, 10.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.162 | 0.432 | -0.684, 1.01 | 0.708 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.729 | 0.299 | 0.143, 1.32 | 0.015 | |
3rd | 0.925 | 0.307 | 0.323, 1.53 | 0.003 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.40 | 0.453 | 0.514, 2.29 | 0.002 | |
treatment * 3rd | 1.63 | 0.462 | 0.728, 2.54 | 0.000 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.053 | ||||
phq | (Intercept) | 8.21 | 0.379 | 7.47, 8.95 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.592 | 0.535 | -0.457, 1.64 | 0.269 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.779 | 0.333 | -1.43, -0.126 | 0.020 | |
3rd | -0.642 | 0.343 | -1.31, 0.029 | 0.061 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.73 | 0.506 | -2.73, -0.742 | 0.001 | |
treatment * 3rd | -2.44 | 0.516 | -3.45, -1.43 | 0.000 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.039 | ||||
gad | (Intercept) | 7.54 | 0.382 | 6.79, 8.28 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.480 | 0.540 | -0.577, 1.54 | 0.374 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.440 | 0.341 | -1.11, 0.229 | 0.198 | |
3rd | -0.585 | 0.351 | -1.27, 0.102 | 0.096 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -2.07 | 0.518 | -3.09, -1.06 | 0.000 | |
treatment * 3rd | -2.38 | 0.528 | -3.41, -1.34 | 0.000 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.038 | ||||
wsas | (Intercept) | 16.8 | 0.749 | 15.3, 18.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.084 | 1.059 | -2.16, 1.99 | 0.937 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.819 | 0.695 | -2.18, 0.543 | 0.239 | |
3rd | -0.116 | 0.715 | -1.52, 1.28 | 0.871 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -2.95 | 1.054 | -5.02, -0.886 | 0.005 | |
treatment * 3rd | -4.92 | 1.076 | -7.03, -2.81 | 0.000 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.034 | ||||
shps_arousal | (Intercept) | 3.02 | 0.055 | 2.91, 3.13 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.163 | 0.078 | 0.009, 0.316 | 0.039 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.196 | 0.059 | -0.312, -0.079 | 0.001 | |
3rd | -0.219 | 0.061 | -0.339, -0.100 | 0.000 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.477 | 0.089 | -0.653, -0.302 | 0.000 | |
treatment * 3rd | -0.564 | 0.091 | -0.743, -0.386 | 0.000 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.112 | ||||
shps_schedule | (Intercept) | 3.53 | 0.067 | 3.40, 3.66 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.042 | 0.094 | -0.143, 0.226 | 0.659 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.101 | 0.060 | -0.218, 0.017 | 0.094 | |
3rd | -0.133 | 0.062 | -0.254, -0.013 | 0.031 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.345 | 0.091 | -0.523, -0.167 | 0.000 | |
treatment * 3rd | -0.424 | 0.093 | -0.606, -0.242 | 0.000 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.045 | ||||
shps_behavior | (Intercept) | 1.99 | 0.051 | 1.89, 2.08 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.132 | 0.072 | -0.009, 0.273 | 0.067 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.024 | 0.051 | -0.075, 0.124 | 0.629 | |
3rd | 0.012 | 0.052 | -0.090, 0.114 | 0.816 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.244 | 0.077 | -0.394, -0.094 | 0.002 | |
treatment * 3rd | -0.336 | 0.078 | -0.489, -0.182 | 0.000 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.020 | ||||
shps_environment | (Intercept) | 2.33 | 0.061 | 2.21, 2.45 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.062 | 0.086 | -0.230, 0.106 | 0.469 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.058 | 0.060 | -0.176, 0.059 | 0.331 | |
3rd | -0.060 | 0.062 | -0.180, 0.061 | 0.334 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.085 | 0.091 | -0.263, 0.092 | 0.347 | |
treatment * 3rd | -0.259 | 0.093 | -0.441, -0.078 | 0.005 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.021 | ||||
dbas_consequence | (Intercept) | 6.59 | 0.140 | 6.31, 6.86 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.054 | 0.199 | -0.336, 0.443 | 0.787 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.336 | 0.141 | -0.612, -0.061 | 0.017 | |
3rd | -0.659 | 0.145 | -0.942, -0.375 | 0.000 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.11 | 0.213 | -1.53, -0.693 | 0.000 | |
treatment * 3rd | -1.31 | 0.217 | -1.74, -0.884 | 0.000 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.117 | ||||
dbas_worry | (Intercept) | 14.2 | 0.284 | 13.6, 14.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.341 | 0.401 | -0.445, 1.13 | 0.396 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.23 | 0.323 | -1.86, -0.598 | 0.000 | |
3rd | -1.82 | 0.332 | -2.47, -1.17 | 0.000 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -2.71 | 0.487 | -3.67, -1.76 | 0.000 | |
treatment * 3rd | -2.89 | 0.496 | -3.86, -1.92 | 0.000 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.162 | ||||
dbas_expectation | (Intercept) | 7.17 | 0.172 | 6.84, 7.51 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.285 | 0.244 | -0.763, 0.193 | 0.243 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.343 | 0.176 | -0.688, 0.002 | 0.052 | |
3rd | -0.766 | 0.181 | -1.12, -0.411 | 0.000 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.25 | 0.266 | -1.77, -0.727 | 0.000 | |
treatment * 3rd | -1.29 | 0.271 | -1.82, -0.758 | 0.000 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.111 | ||||
dbas_medication | (Intercept) | 3.15 | 0.161 | 2.83, 3.46 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.089 | 0.228 | -0.357, 0.536 | 0.695 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.366 | 0.164 | 0.044, 0.688 | 0.026 | |
3rd | 0.306 | 0.169 | -0.025, 0.637 | 0.071 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.664 | 0.249 | -1.15, -0.177 | 0.008 | |
treatment * 3rd | -0.857 | 0.254 | -1.35, -0.360 | 0.001 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.015 | ||||
psas_somatic | (Intercept) | 1.86 | 0.051 | 1.76, 1.96 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.045 | 0.072 | -0.096, 0.185 | 0.533 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.143 | 0.047 | 0.051, 0.236 | 0.003 | |
3rd | 0.010 | 0.049 | -0.086, 0.105 | 0.838 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.306 | 0.072 | -0.447, -0.165 | 0.000 | |
treatment * 3rd | -0.242 | 0.073 | -0.386, -0.098 | 0.001 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.021 | ||||
psas_cognitive | (Intercept) | 2.87 | 0.063 | 2.75, 3.00 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.099 | 0.090 | -0.077, 0.275 | 0.270 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.204 | 0.064 | -0.329, -0.079 | 0.001 | |
3rd | -0.359 | 0.066 | -0.487, -0.230 | 0.000 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.434 | 0.097 | -0.623, -0.245 | 0.000 | |
treatment * 3rd | -0.411 | 0.099 | -0.604, -0.218 | 0.000 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.091 | ||||
psqi_global | (Intercept) | 10.7 | 0.237 | 10.3, 11.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.291 | 0.335 | -0.366, 0.947 | 0.386 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.31 | 0.258 | -1.82, -0.808 | 0.000 | |
3rd | -1.32 | 0.265 | -1.83, -0.796 | 0.000 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.86 | 0.389 | -2.62, -1.10 | 0.000 | |
treatment * 3rd | -2.44 | 0.397 | -3.22, -1.67 | 0.000 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.149 | ||||
mic_attention | (Intercept) | 1.30 | 0.057 | 1.19, 1.41 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.122 | 0.080 | -0.035, 0.278 | 0.130 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.022 | 0.055 | -0.131, 0.087 | 0.694 | |
3rd | 0.031 | 0.057 | -0.081, 0.143 | 0.589 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.248 | 0.084 | -0.412, -0.083 | 0.003 | |
treatment * 3rd | -0.384 | 0.086 | -0.552, -0.216 | 0.000 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.021 | ||||
mic_executive | (Intercept) | 1.28 | 0.058 | 1.17, 1.39 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.067 | 0.082 | -0.094, 0.228 | 0.415 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.034 | 0.054 | -0.140, 0.073 | 0.537 | |
3rd | -0.051 | 0.056 | -0.160, 0.059 | 0.365 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.159 | 0.083 | -0.321, 0.002 | 0.054 | |
treatment * 3rd | -0.270 | 0.084 | -0.435, -0.105 | 0.001 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.015 | ||||
mic_memory | (Intercept) | 1.33 | 0.057 | 1.22, 1.44 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.066 | 0.081 | -0.093, 0.224 | 0.417 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.031 | 0.051 | -0.069, 0.132 | 0.538 | |
3rd | -0.062 | 0.053 | -0.165, 0.041 | 0.235 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.276 | 0.078 | -0.428, -0.124 | 0.000 | |
treatment * 3rd | -0.221 | 0.079 | -0.376, -0.066 | 0.005 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.017 | ||||
nb_pcs | (Intercept) | 46.3 | 0.658 | 45.0, 47.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.139 | 0.931 | -1.96, 1.69 | 0.882 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.871 | 0.590 | -2.03, 0.285 | 0.140 | |
3rd | -0.784 | 0.607 | -1.97, 0.405 | 0.197 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 2.76 | 0.896 | 1.00, 4.51 | 0.002 | |
treatment * 3rd | 3.20 | 0.914 | 1.41, 4.99 | 0.001 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.015 | ||||
nb_mcs | (Intercept) | 39.9 | 0.771 | 38.4, 41.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.085 | 1.090 | -2.05, 2.22 | 0.938 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 2.00 | 0.739 | 0.554, 3.45 | 0.007 | |
3rd | 2.27 | 0.760 | 0.781, 3.76 | 0.003 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 3.57 | 1.121 | 1.37, 5.77 | 0.002 | |
treatment * 3rd | 4.66 | 1.144 | 2.42, 6.90 | 0.000 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.056 | ||||
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval | |||||
Text
isi
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict isi with group and time_point (formula: isi ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.26. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.53 (95% CI [12.97, 14.09], t(849) = 47.37, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.92, 0.66], t(849) = -0.32, p = 0.750; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.15])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -2.46, 95% CI [-3.09, -1.82], t(849) = -7.62, p < .001; Std. beta = -0.55, 95% CI [-0.69, -0.41])
- The effect of time point [3rd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -2.84, 95% CI [-3.49, -2.19], t(849) = -8.57, p < .001; Std. beta = -0.63, 95% CI [-0.78, -0.49])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -2.96, 95% CI [-3.92, -2.01], t(849) = -6.09, p < .001; Std. beta = -0.66, 95% CI [-0.87, -0.45])
- The interaction effect of time point [3rd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -2.99, 95% CI [-3.97, -2.02], t(849) = -6.04, p < .001; Std. beta = -0.67, 95% CI [-0.88, -0.45])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
who
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict who with group and time_point (formula: who ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.61) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.82 (95% CI [9.22, 10.42], t(849) = 32.17, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.68, 1.01], t(849) = 0.38, p = 0.708; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.24])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.73, 95% CI [0.14, 1.32], t(849) = 2.44, p = 0.015; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [0.03, 0.31])
- The effect of time point [3rd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.93, 95% CI [0.32, 1.53], t(849) = 3.01, p = 0.003; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [0.08, 0.36])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.40, 95% CI [0.51, 2.29], t(849) = 3.10, p = 0.002; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [0.12, 0.54])
- The interaction effect of time point [3rd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.63, 95% CI [0.73, 2.54], t(849) = 3.53, p < .001; Std. beta = 0.39, 95% CI [0.17, 0.60])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
phq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict phq with group and time_point (formula: phq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.21 (95% CI [7.47, 8.95], t(849) = 21.69, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.59, 95% CI [-0.46, 1.64], t(849) = 1.11, p = 0.269; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.32])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.78, 95% CI [-1.43, -0.13], t(849) = -2.34, p = 0.019; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.28, -0.02])
- The effect of time point [3rd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.64, 95% CI [-1.31, 0.03], t(849) = -1.88, p = 0.061; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.25, 5.60e-03])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.73, 95% CI [-2.73, -0.74], t(849) = -3.43, p < .001; Std. beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-0.52, -0.14])
- The interaction effect of time point [3rd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -2.44, 95% CI [-3.45, -1.43], t(849) = -4.73, p < .001; Std. beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-0.67, -0.28])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
gad
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict gad with group and time_point (formula: gad ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 7.54 (95% CI [6.79, 8.28], t(849) = 19.75, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.48, 95% CI [-0.58, 1.54], t(849) = 0.89, p = 0.373; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.30])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.44, 95% CI [-1.11, 0.23], t(849) = -1.29, p = 0.197; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.04])
- The effect of time point [3rd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.59, 95% CI [-1.27, 0.10], t(849) = -1.67, p = 0.095; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.02])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -2.07, 95% CI [-3.09, -1.06], t(849) = -4.00, p < .001; Std. beta = -0.40, 95% CI [-0.60, -0.20])
- The interaction effect of time point [3rd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -2.38, 95% CI [-3.41, -1.34], t(849) = -4.50, p < .001; Std. beta = -0.46, 95% CI [-0.66, -0.26])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
wsas
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict wsas with group and time_point (formula: wsas ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.77 (95% CI [15.30, 18.24], t(849) = 22.41, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-2.16, 1.99], t(849) = -0.08, p = 0.937; Std. beta = -8.24e-03, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.20])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.82, 95% CI [-2.18, 0.54], t(849) = -1.18, p = 0.239; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.05])
- The effect of time point [3rd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-1.52, 1.28], t(849) = -0.16, p = 0.871; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.13])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -2.95, 95% CI [-5.02, -0.89], t(849) = -2.80, p = 0.005; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.49, -0.09])
- The interaction effect of time point [3rd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -4.92, 95% CI [-7.03, -2.81], t(849) = -4.57, p < .001; Std. beta = -0.48, 95% CI [-0.69, -0.28])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shps_arousal
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shps_arousal with group and time_point (formula: shps_arousal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.56) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.11. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.02 (95% CI [2.91, 3.13], t(849) = 54.48, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [8.89e-03, 0.32], t(849) = 2.07, p = 0.038; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [0.01, 0.40])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.31, -0.08], t(849) = -3.30, p < .001; Std. beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.39, -0.10])
- The effect of time point [3rd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.34, -0.10], t(849) = -3.61, p < .001; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.43, -0.13])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.48, 95% CI [-0.65, -0.30], t(849) = -5.34, p < .001; Std. beta = -0.60, 95% CI [-0.83, -0.38])
- The interaction effect of time point [3rd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.56, 95% CI [-0.74, -0.39], t(849) = -6.19, p < .001; Std. beta = -0.71, 95% CI [-0.94, -0.49])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shps_schedule
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shps_schedule with group and time_point (formula: shps_schedule ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.53 (95% CI [3.40, 3.66], t(849) = 53.13, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.23], t(849) = 0.44, p = 0.659; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.25])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.02], t(849) = -1.68, p = 0.093; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.02])
- The effect of time point [3rd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.25, -0.01], t(849) = -2.17, p = 0.030; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.28, -0.01])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-0.52, -0.17], t(849) = -3.79, p < .001; Std. beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-0.57, -0.18])
- The interaction effect of time point [3rd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-0.61, -0.24], t(849) = -4.56, p < .001; Std. beta = -0.46, 95% CI [-0.66, -0.26])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shps_behavior
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shps_behavior with group and time_point (formula: shps_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.58) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 1.99 (95% CI [1.89, 2.08], t(849) = 39.01, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-8.85e-03, 0.27], t(849) = 1.84, p = 0.066; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.40])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.12], t(849) = 0.48, p = 0.629; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.18])
- The effect of time point [3rd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.11], t(849) = 0.23, p = 0.816; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.17])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-0.39, -0.09], t(849) = -3.18, p = 0.001; Std. beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-0.57, -0.14])
- The interaction effect of time point [3rd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-0.49, -0.18], t(849) = -4.29, p < .001; Std. beta = -0.49, 95% CI [-0.71, -0.27])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shps_environment
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shps_environment with group and time_point (formula: shps_environment ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 2.33 (95% CI [2.21, 2.45], t(849) = 38.45, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.11], t(849) = -0.72, p = 0.469; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.13])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.06], t(849) = -0.97, p = 0.330; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.07])
- The effect of time point [3rd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.06], t(849) = -0.97, p = 0.333; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.08])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.09], t(849) = -0.94, p = 0.346; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.11])
- The interaction effect of time point [3rd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.44, -0.08], t(849) = -2.80, p = 0.005; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.54, -0.10])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
dbas_consequence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict dbas_consequence with group and time_point (formula: dbas_consequence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.12. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 6.59 (95% CI [6.31, 6.86], t(849) = 46.92, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.44], t(849) = 0.27, p = 0.787; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.22])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-0.61, -0.06], t(849) = -2.39, p = 0.017; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.30, -0.03])
- The effect of time point [3rd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.66, 95% CI [-0.94, -0.38], t(849) = -4.56, p < .001; Std. beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-0.47, -0.19])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.11, 95% CI [-1.53, -0.69], t(849) = -5.22, p < .001; Std. beta = -0.55, 95% CI [-0.76, -0.34])
- The interaction effect of time point [3rd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.31, 95% CI [-1.74, -0.88], t(849) = -6.03, p < .001; Std. beta = -0.65, 95% CI [-0.86, -0.44])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
dbas_worry
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict dbas_worry with group and time_point (formula: dbas_worry ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.53) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.16. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.20 (95% CI [13.65, 14.76], t(849) = 50.09, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.45, 1.13], t(849) = 0.85, p = 0.395; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.27])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.23, 95% CI [-1.86, -0.60], t(849) = -3.81, p < .001; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.45, -0.14])
- The effect of time point [3rd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.82, 95% CI [-2.47, -1.17], t(849) = -5.50, p < .001; Std. beta = -0.44, 95% CI [-0.60, -0.28])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -2.71, 95% CI [-3.67, -1.76], t(849) = -5.57, p < .001; Std. beta = -0.65, 95% CI [-0.88, -0.42])
- The interaction effect of time point [3rd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -2.89, 95% CI [-3.86, -1.92], t(849) = -5.82, p < .001; Std. beta = -0.70, 95% CI [-0.93, -0.46])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
dbas_expectation
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict dbas_expectation with group and time_point (formula: dbas_expectation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.60) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.11. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 7.17 (95% CI [6.84, 7.51], t(849) = 41.63, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.76, 0.19], t(849) = -1.17, p = 0.242; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.08])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-0.69, 1.61e-03], t(849) = -1.95, p = 0.051; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.28, 6.59e-04])
- The effect of time point [3rd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.77, 95% CI [-1.12, -0.41], t(849) = -4.24, p < .001; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.46, -0.17])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.25, 95% CI [-1.77, -0.73], t(849) = -4.69, p < .001; Std. beta = -0.51, 95% CI [-0.72, -0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [3rd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.29, 95% CI [-1.82, -0.76], t(849) = -4.75, p < .001; Std. beta = -0.53, 95% CI [-0.75, -0.31])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
dbas_medication
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict dbas_medication with group and time_point (formula: dbas_medication ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.56) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.15 (95% CI [2.83, 3.46], t(849) = 19.54, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.54], t(849) = 0.39, p = 0.695; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.25])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [0.04, 0.69], t(849) = 2.23, p = 0.026; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [0.02, 0.32])
- The effect of time point [3rd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.64], t(849) = 1.81, p = 0.070; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.29])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.66, 95% CI [-1.15, -0.18], t(849) = -2.67, p = 0.008; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.53, -0.08])
- The interaction effect of time point [3rd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.86, 95% CI [-1.35, -0.36], t(849) = -3.38, p < .001; Std. beta = -0.40, 95% CI [-0.63, -0.17])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
psas_somatic
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict psas_somatic with group and time_point (formula: psas_somatic ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.63) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 1.86 (95% CI [1.76, 1.96], t(849) = 36.75, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.19], t(849) = 0.62, p = 0.533; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.27])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [0.05, 0.24], t(849) = 3.03, p = 0.002; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [0.07, 0.35])
- The effect of time point [3rd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 9.94e-03, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.11], t(849) = 0.20, p = 0.838; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.15])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.45, -0.17], t(849) = -4.26, p < .001; Std. beta = -0.45, 95% CI [-0.65, -0.24])
- The interaction effect of time point [3rd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-0.39, -0.10], t(849) = -3.30, p < .001; Std. beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-0.56, -0.14])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
psas_cognitive
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict psas_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: psas_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.61) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.09. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 2.87 (95% CI [2.75, 3.00], t(849) = 45.25, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.28], t(849) = 1.10, p = 0.269; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.31])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.33, -0.08], t(849) = -3.20, p = 0.001; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.37, -0.09])
- The effect of time point [3rd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-0.49, -0.23], t(849) = -5.47, p < .001; Std. beta = -0.40, 95% CI [-0.55, -0.26])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.43, 95% CI [-0.62, -0.24], t(849) = -4.49, p < .001; Std. beta = -0.49, 95% CI [-0.70, -0.28])
- The interaction effect of time point [3rd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-0.60, -0.22], t(849) = -4.17, p < .001; Std. beta = -0.46, 95% CI [-0.68, -0.25])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
psqi_global
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict psqi_global with group and time_point (formula: psqi_global ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.56) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.15. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.72 (95% CI [10.26, 11.19], t(849) = 45.25, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.95], t(849) = 0.87, p = 0.386; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.27])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.31, 95% CI [-1.82, -0.81], t(849) = -5.09, p < .001; Std. beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-0.53, -0.23])
- The effect of time point [3rd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.32, 95% CI [-1.83, -0.80], t(849) = -4.97, p < .001; Std. beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-0.53, -0.23])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.86, 95% CI [-2.62, -1.10], t(849) = -4.78, p < .001; Std. beta = -0.54, 95% CI [-0.76, -0.32])
- The interaction effect of time point [3rd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -2.44, 95% CI [-3.22, -1.67], t(849) = -6.16, p < .001; Std. beta = -0.71, 95% CI [-0.93, -0.48])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mic_attention
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mic_attention with group and time_point (formula: mic_attention ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.60) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 1.30 (95% CI [1.19, 1.41], t(849) = 22.91, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.28], t(849) = 1.52, p = 0.129; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.36])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.09], t(849) = -0.39, p = 0.693; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.11])
- The effect of time point [3rd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.14], t(849) = 0.54, p = 0.589; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.19])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.41, -0.08], t(849) = -2.95, p = 0.003; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.54, -0.11])
- The interaction effect of time point [3rd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-0.55, -0.22], t(849) = -4.49, p < .001; Std. beta = -0.50, 95% CI [-0.72, -0.28])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mic_executive
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mic_executive with group and time_point (formula: mic_executive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.63) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 1.28 (95% CI [1.17, 1.39], t(849) = 22.00, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.23], t(849) = 0.82, p = 0.415; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.29])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.07], t(849) = -0.62, p = 0.537; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.09])
- The effect of time point [3rd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.06], t(849) = -0.91, p = 0.365; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.07])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.32, 2.38e-03], t(849) = -1.93, p = 0.053; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.41, 3.02e-03])
- The interaction effect of time point [3rd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.43, -0.10], t(849) = -3.20, p = 0.001; Std. beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-0.55, -0.13])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mic_memory
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mic_memory with group and time_point (formula: mic_memory ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 1.33 (95% CI [1.22, 1.44], t(849) = 23.30, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.22], t(849) = 0.81, p = 0.417; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.29])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.13], t(849) = 0.62, p = 0.538; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.17])
- The effect of time point [3rd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.04], t(849) = -1.19, p = 0.235; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.05])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.43, -0.12], t(849) = -3.56, p < .001; Std. beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-0.55, -0.16])
- The interaction effect of time point [3rd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.38, -0.07], t(849) = -2.79, p = 0.005; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.48, -0.08])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
nb_pcs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict nb_pcs with group and time_point (formula: nb_pcs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 46.33 (95% CI [45.04, 47.63], t(849) = 70.37, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-1.96, 1.69], t(849) = -0.15, p = 0.881; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.19])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.87, 95% CI [-2.03, 0.29], t(849) = -1.48, p = 0.140; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.03])
- The effect of time point [3rd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.78, 95% CI [-1.97, 0.41], t(849) = -1.29, p = 0.196; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.05])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.76, 95% CI [1.00, 4.51], t(849) = 3.08, p = 0.002; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [0.11, 0.51])
- The interaction effect of time point [3rd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 3.20, 95% CI [1.41, 4.99], t(849) = 3.50, p < .001; Std. beta = 0.36, 95% CI [0.16, 0.56])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
nb_mcs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict nb_mcs with group and time_point (formula: nb_mcs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.63) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 39.90 (95% CI [38.39, 41.41], t(849) = 51.76, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-2.05, 2.22], t(849) = 0.08, p = 0.938; Std. beta = 7.98e-03, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.21])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.00, 95% CI [0.55, 3.45], t(849) = 2.71, p = 0.007; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [0.05, 0.32])
- The effect of time point [3rd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.27, 95% CI [0.78, 3.76], t(849) = 2.99, p = 0.003; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [0.07, 0.35])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 3.57, 95% CI [1.37, 5.77], t(849) = 3.18, p = 0.001; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [0.13, 0.54])
- The interaction effect of time point [3rd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 4.66, 95% CI [2.42, 6.90], t(849) = 4.08, p < .001; Std. beta = 0.44, 95% CI [0.23, 0.65])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
Likelihood ratio tests
outcome | model | npar | AIC | BIC | logLik | deviance | Chisq | Df | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
isi | null | 3 | 4,937.426 | 4,951.686 | -2,465.713 | 4,931.426 | |||
isi | random | 8 | 4,605.167 | 4,643.195 | -2,294.584 | 4,589.167 | 342.259 | 5 | 0.000 |
who | null | 3 | 4,671.034 | 4,685.294 | -2,332.517 | 4,665.034 | |||
who | random | 8 | 4,605.600 | 4,643.627 | -2,294.800 | 4,589.600 | 75.434 | 5 | 0.000 |
phq | null | 3 | 4,948.472 | 4,962.732 | -2,471.236 | 4,942.472 | |||
phq | random | 8 | 4,882.039 | 4,920.066 | -2,433.019 | 4,866.039 | 76.433 | 5 | 0.000 |
gad | null | 3 | 4,967.243 | 4,981.503 | -2,480.621 | 4,961.243 | |||
gad | random | 8 | 4,909.463 | 4,947.490 | -2,446.731 | 4,893.463 | 67.780 | 5 | 0.000 |
wsas | null | 3 | 6,134.981 | 6,149.242 | -3,064.491 | 6,128.981 | |||
wsas | random | 8 | 6,097.629 | 6,135.657 | -3,040.815 | 6,081.629 | 47.352 | 5 | 0.000 |
shps_arousal | null | 3 | 1,904.039 | 1,918.299 | -949.019 | 1,898.039 | |||
shps_arousal | random | 8 | 1,752.969 | 1,790.996 | -868.484 | 1,736.969 | 161.070 | 5 | 0.000 |
shps_schedule | null | 3 | 1,989.941 | 2,004.202 | -991.971 | 1,983.941 | |||
shps_schedule | random | 8 | 1,922.528 | 1,960.556 | -953.264 | 1,906.528 | 77.413 | 5 | 0.000 |
shps_behavior | null | 3 | 1,570.545 | 1,584.805 | -782.272 | 1,564.545 | |||
shps_behavior | random | 8 | 1,547.901 | 1,585.929 | -765.951 | 1,531.901 | 32.644 | 5 | 0.000 |
shps_environment | null | 3 | 1,858.024 | 1,872.284 | -926.012 | 1,852.024 | |||
shps_environment | random | 8 | 1,842.628 | 1,880.655 | -913.314 | 1,826.628 | 25.397 | 5 | 0.000 |
dbas_consequence | null | 3 | 3,452.521 | 3,466.782 | -1,723.261 | 3,446.521 | |||
dbas_consequence | random | 8 | 3,293.207 | 3,331.235 | -1,638.604 | 3,277.207 | 169.314 | 5 | 0.000 |
dbas_worry | null | 3 | 4,792.541 | 4,806.801 | -2,393.271 | 4,786.541 | |||
dbas_worry | random | 8 | 4,599.012 | 4,637.039 | -2,291.506 | 4,583.012 | 203.529 | 5 | 0.000 |
dbas_expectation | null | 3 | 3,786.392 | 3,800.652 | -1,890.196 | 3,780.392 | |||
dbas_expectation | random | 8 | 3,659.316 | 3,697.344 | -1,821.658 | 3,643.316 | 137.076 | 5 | 0.000 |
dbas_medication | null | 3 | 3,549.571 | 3,563.832 | -1,771.786 | 3,543.571 | |||
dbas_medication | random | 8 | 3,543.114 | 3,581.141 | -1,763.557 | 3,527.114 | 16.458 | 5 | 0.006 |
psas_somatic | null | 3 | 1,509.153 | 1,523.413 | -751.576 | 1,503.153 | |||
psas_somatic | random | 8 | 1,487.295 | 1,525.323 | -735.648 | 1,471.295 | 31.858 | 5 | 0.000 |
psas_cognitive | null | 3 | 2,069.165 | 2,083.426 | -1,031.583 | 2,063.165 | |||
psas_cognitive | random | 8 | 1,935.364 | 1,973.392 | -959.682 | 1,919.364 | 143.801 | 5 | 0.000 |
psqi_global | null | 3 | 4,450.346 | 4,464.606 | -2,222.173 | 4,444.346 | |||
psqi_global | random | 8 | 4,256.233 | 4,294.260 | -2,120.116 | 4,240.233 | 204.113 | 5 | 0.000 |
mic_attention | null | 3 | 1,742.574 | 1,756.834 | -868.287 | 1,736.574 | |||
mic_attention | random | 8 | 1,717.905 | 1,755.933 | -850.953 | 1,701.905 | 34.669 | 5 | 0.000 |
mic_executive | null | 3 | 1,741.834 | 1,756.094 | -867.917 | 1,735.834 | |||
mic_executive | random | 8 | 1,724.487 | 1,762.514 | -854.243 | 1,708.487 | 27.347 | 5 | 0.000 |
mic_memory | null | 3 | 1,676.383 | 1,690.643 | -835.191 | 1,670.383 | |||
mic_memory | random | 8 | 1,655.500 | 1,693.527 | -819.750 | 1,639.500 | 30.883 | 5 | 0.000 |
nb_pcs | null | 3 | 5,856.040 | 5,870.301 | -2,925.020 | 5,850.040 | |||
nb_pcs | random | 8 | 5,846.969 | 5,884.997 | -2,915.485 | 5,830.969 | 19.071 | 5 | 0.002 |
nb_mcs | null | 3 | 6,250.947 | 6,265.208 | -3,122.474 | 6,244.947 | |||
nb_mcs | random | 8 | 6,175.705 | 6,213.732 | -3,079.852 | 6,159.705 | 85.242 | 5 | 0.000 |
Post hoc analysis
Table
outcome | time | control | treatment | between | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | estimate | within es | n | estimate | within es | p | es | ||
isi | 1st | 179 | 13.53 ± 3.82 | 179 | 13.40 ± 3.82 | 0.751 | 0.045 | ||
isi | 2nd | 148 | 11.07 ± 3.76 | 0.864 | 109 | 7.98 ± 3.67 | 1.906 | 0.000 | 1.087 |
isi | 3rd | 137 | 10.69 ± 3.72 | 0.999 | 105 | 7.57 ± 3.66 | 2.051 | 0.000 | 1.098 |
who | 1st | 179 | 9.82 ± 4.09 | 179 | 9.98 ± 4.09 | 0.708 | -0.062 | ||
who | 2nd | 148 | 10.55 ± 3.96 | -0.279 | 109 | 12.11 ± 3.80 | -0.814 | 0.001 | -0.597 |
who | 3rd | 137 | 10.75 ± 3.90 | -0.353 | 105 | 12.54 ± 3.77 | -0.977 | 0.000 | -0.686 |
phq | 1st | 179 | 8.21 ± 5.07 | 179 | 8.80 ± 5.07 | 0.269 | -0.204 | ||
phq | 2nd | 148 | 7.43 ± 4.86 | 0.268 | 109 | 6.29 ± 4.60 | 0.865 | 0.055 | 0.393 |
phq | 3rd | 137 | 7.57 ± 4.77 | 0.221 | 105 | 5.72 ± 4.56 | 1.061 | 0.002 | 0.636 |
gad | 1st | 179 | 7.54 ± 5.11 | 179 | 8.02 ± 5.11 | 0.374 | -0.161 | ||
gad | 2nd | 148 | 7.10 ± 4.91 | 0.148 | 109 | 5.51 ± 4.65 | 0.844 | 0.008 | 0.535 |
gad | 3rd | 137 | 6.95 ± 4.82 | 0.197 | 105 | 5.05 ± 4.62 | 0.995 | 0.002 | 0.637 |
wsas | 1st | 179 | 16.77 ± 10.01 | 179 | 16.69 ± 10.01 | 0.937 | 0.014 | ||
wsas | 2nd | 148 | 15.95 ± 9.66 | 0.135 | 109 | 12.92 ± 9.20 | 0.621 | 0.011 | 0.500 |
wsas | 3rd | 137 | 16.65 ± 9.50 | 0.019 | 105 | 11.65 ± 9.14 | 0.829 | 0.000 | 0.823 |
shps_arousal | 1st | 179 | 3.02 ± 0.74 | 179 | 3.18 ± 0.74 | 0.039 | -0.312 | ||
shps_arousal | 2nd | 148 | 2.83 ± 0.73 | 0.376 | 109 | 2.51 ± 0.70 | 1.292 | 0.001 | 0.604 |
shps_arousal | 3rd | 137 | 2.80 ± 0.72 | 0.421 | 105 | 2.40 ± 0.70 | 1.505 | 0.000 | 0.772 |
shps_schedule | 1st | 179 | 3.53 ± 0.89 | 179 | 3.58 ± 0.89 | 0.659 | -0.079 | ||
shps_schedule | 2nd | 148 | 3.43 ± 0.86 | 0.192 | 109 | 3.13 ± 0.81 | 0.851 | 0.004 | 0.580 |
shps_schedule | 3rd | 137 | 3.40 ± 0.84 | 0.255 | 105 | 3.02 ± 0.81 | 1.064 | 0.000 | 0.730 |
shps_behavior | 1st | 179 | 1.99 ± 0.68 | 179 | 2.12 ± 0.68 | 0.067 | -0.298 | ||
shps_behavior | 2nd | 148 | 2.01 ± 0.66 | -0.055 | 109 | 1.90 ± 0.64 | 0.495 | 0.172 | 0.252 |
shps_behavior | 3rd | 137 | 2.00 ± 0.65 | -0.027 | 105 | 1.79 ± 0.63 | 0.729 | 0.015 | 0.458 |
shps_environment | 1st | 179 | 2.33 ± 0.81 | 179 | 2.27 ± 0.81 | 0.469 | 0.118 | ||
shps_environment | 2nd | 148 | 2.27 ± 0.79 | 0.111 | 109 | 2.13 ± 0.76 | 0.274 | 0.129 | 0.281 |
shps_environment | 3rd | 137 | 2.27 ± 0.78 | 0.113 | 105 | 1.95 ± 0.75 | 0.608 | 0.001 | 0.612 |
dbas_consequence | 1st | 179 | 6.59 ± 1.88 | 179 | 6.64 ± 1.88 | 0.787 | -0.043 | ||
dbas_consequence | 2nd | 148 | 6.25 ± 1.83 | 0.273 | 109 | 5.19 ± 1.76 | 1.173 | 0.000 | 0.857 |
dbas_consequence | 3rd | 137 | 5.93 ± 1.80 | 0.534 | 105 | 4.67 ± 1.75 | 1.596 | 0.000 | 1.018 |
dbas_worry | 1st | 179 | 14.20 ± 3.79 | 179 | 14.54 ± 3.79 | 0.396 | -0.120 | ||
dbas_worry | 2nd | 148 | 12.97 ± 3.73 | 0.432 | 109 | 10.60 ± 3.65 | 1.384 | 0.000 | 0.832 |
dbas_worry | 3rd | 137 | 12.38 ± 3.70 | 0.640 | 105 | 9.83 ± 3.64 | 1.653 | 0.000 | 0.894 |
dbas_expectation | 1st | 179 | 7.17 ± 2.31 | 179 | 6.89 ± 2.31 | 0.243 | 0.185 | ||
dbas_expectation | 2nd | 148 | 6.83 ± 2.24 | 0.222 | 109 | 5.30 ± 2.16 | 1.031 | 0.000 | 0.994 |
dbas_expectation | 3rd | 137 | 6.41 ± 2.21 | 0.496 | 105 | 4.83 ± 2.15 | 1.333 | 0.000 | 1.021 |
dbas_medication | 1st | 179 | 3.15 ± 2.15 | 179 | 3.24 ± 2.15 | 0.695 | -0.062 | ||
dbas_medication | 2nd | 148 | 3.51 ± 2.10 | -0.254 | 109 | 2.94 ± 2.02 | 0.206 | 0.027 | 0.398 |
dbas_medication | 3rd | 137 | 3.45 ± 2.07 | -0.212 | 105 | 2.69 ± 2.01 | 0.382 | 0.004 | 0.532 |
psas_somatic | 1st | 179 | 1.86 ± 0.68 | 179 | 1.91 ± 0.68 | 0.533 | -0.108 | ||
psas_somatic | 2nd | 148 | 2.00 ± 0.65 | -0.347 | 109 | 1.74 ± 0.62 | 0.393 | 0.001 | 0.632 |
psas_somatic | 3rd | 137 | 1.87 ± 0.64 | -0.024 | 105 | 1.67 ± 0.62 | 0.560 | 0.016 | 0.476 |
psas_cognitive | 1st | 179 | 2.87 ± 0.85 | 179 | 2.97 ± 0.85 | 0.270 | -0.177 | ||
psas_cognitive | 2nd | 148 | 2.67 ± 0.83 | 0.365 | 109 | 2.33 ± 0.79 | 1.141 | 0.001 | 0.599 |
psas_cognitive | 3rd | 137 | 2.51 ± 0.81 | 0.641 | 105 | 2.20 ± 0.79 | 1.376 | 0.003 | 0.558 |
psqi_global | 1st | 179 | 10.72 ± 3.17 | 179 | 11.01 ± 3.17 | 0.386 | -0.128 | ||
psqi_global | 2nd | 148 | 9.41 ± 3.10 | 0.579 | 109 | 7.84 ± 3.02 | 1.399 | 0.000 | 0.692 |
psqi_global | 3rd | 137 | 9.41 ± 3.07 | 0.580 | 105 | 7.25 ± 3.01 | 1.657 | 0.000 | 0.949 |
mic_attention | 1st | 179 | 1.30 ± 0.76 | 179 | 1.42 ± 0.76 | 0.130 | -0.250 | ||
mic_attention | 2nd | 148 | 1.28 ± 0.73 | 0.045 | 109 | 1.15 ± 0.70 | 0.555 | 0.165 | 0.260 |
mic_attention | 3rd | 137 | 1.33 ± 0.72 | -0.063 | 105 | 1.07 ± 0.70 | 0.728 | 0.004 | 0.541 |
mic_executive | 1st | 179 | 1.28 ± 0.78 | 179 | 1.35 ± 0.78 | 0.415 | -0.141 | ||
mic_executive | 2nd | 148 | 1.25 ± 0.75 | 0.071 | 109 | 1.15 ± 0.72 | 0.406 | 0.318 | 0.194 |
mic_executive | 3rd | 137 | 1.23 ± 0.74 | 0.107 | 105 | 1.03 ± 0.71 | 0.674 | 0.031 | 0.426 |
mic_memory | 1st | 179 | 1.33 ± 0.76 | 179 | 1.40 ± 0.76 | 0.417 | -0.147 | ||
mic_memory | 2nd | 148 | 1.36 ± 0.74 | -0.071 | 109 | 1.15 ± 0.70 | 0.548 | 0.020 | 0.471 |
mic_memory | 3rd | 137 | 1.27 ± 0.72 | 0.140 | 105 | 1.12 ± 0.69 | 0.635 | 0.091 | 0.348 |
nb_pcs | 1st | 179 | 46.33 ± 8.81 | 179 | 46.20 ± 8.81 | 0.882 | 0.027 | ||
nb_pcs | 2nd | 148 | 45.46 ± 8.47 | 0.169 | 109 | 48.08 ± 8.03 | -0.366 | 0.012 | -0.508 |
nb_pcs | 3rd | 137 | 45.55 ± 8.32 | 0.152 | 105 | 48.61 ± 7.97 | -0.469 | 0.004 | -0.594 |
nb_mcs | 1st | 179 | 39.90 ± 10.31 | 179 | 39.98 ± 10.31 | 0.938 | -0.013 | ||
nb_mcs | 2nd | 148 | 41.90 ± 9.98 | -0.310 | 109 | 45.56 ± 9.55 | -0.861 | 0.003 | -0.565 |
nb_mcs | 3rd | 137 | 42.17 ± 9.82 | -0.351 | 105 | 46.91 ± 9.48 | -1.071 | 0.000 | -0.733 |
Between group
isi
1st
t(641.12) = -0.32, p = 0.751, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-0.92 to 0.66)
2st
t(756.67) = -6.61, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 1.09, 95% CI (-4.01 to -2.17)
3rd
t(773.70) = -6.53, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 1.10, 95% CI (-4.06 to -2.18)
who
1st
t(548.25) = 0.38, p = 0.708, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.69 to 1.01)
2st
t(687.05) = 3.20, p = 0.001, Cohen d = -0.60, 95% CI (0.60 to 2.52)
3rd
t(707.76) = 3.61, p = 0.000, Cohen d = -0.69, 95% CI (0.82 to 2.77)
phq
1st
t(500.72) = 1.11, p = 0.269, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.46 to 1.64)
2st
t(636.28) = -1.92, p = 0.055, Cohen d = 0.39, 95% CI (-2.31 to 0.03)
3rd
t(656.77) = -3.06, p = 0.002, Cohen d = 0.64, 95% CI (-3.04 to -0.66)
gad
1st
t(506.80) = 0.89, p = 0.374, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.58 to 1.54)
2st
t(643.56) = -2.65, p = 0.008, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-2.77 to -0.41)
3rd
t(664.19) = -3.11, p = 0.002, Cohen d = 0.64, 95% CI (-3.10 to -0.70)
wsas
1st
t(522.87) = -0.08, p = 0.937, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-2.16 to 2.00)
2st
t(661.62) = -2.56, p = 0.011, Cohen d = 0.50, 95% CI (-5.37 to -0.71)
3rd
t(682.47) = -4.15, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.82, 95% CI (-7.37 to -2.64)
shps_arousal
1st
t(600.04) = 2.07, p = 0.039, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (0.01 to 0.32)
2st
t(729.57) = -3.50, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.60, 95% CI (-0.49 to -0.14)
3rd
t(748.70) = -4.38, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.77, 95% CI (-0.58 to -0.22)
shps_schedule
1st
t(510.18) = 0.44, p = 0.659, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.14 to 0.23)
2st
t(647.50) = -2.89, p = 0.004, Cohen d = 0.58, 95% CI (-0.51 to -0.10)
3rd
t(668.20) = -3.59, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.73, 95% CI (-0.59 to -0.17)
shps_behavior
1st
t(556.74) = 1.84, p = 0.067, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.01 to 0.27)
2st
t(694.81) = -1.37, p = 0.172, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-0.27 to 0.05)
3rd
t(715.36) = -2.45, p = 0.015, Cohen d = 0.46, 95% CI (-0.37 to -0.04)
shps_environment
1st
t(552.76) = -0.72, p = 0.469, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-0.23 to 0.11)
2st
t(691.21) = -1.52, p = 0.129, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-0.34 to 0.04)
3rd
t(711.84) = -3.25, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.61, 95% CI (-0.52 to -0.13)
dbas_consequence
1st
t(560.71) = 0.27, p = 0.787, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-0.34 to 0.44)
2st
t(698.32) = -4.69, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.86, 95% CI (-1.50 to -0.61)
3rd
t(718.78) = -5.47, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 1.02, 95% CI (-1.71 to -0.81)
dbas_worry
1st
t(648.31) = 0.85, p = 0.396, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.45 to 1.13)
2st
t(760.95) = -5.10, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.83, 95% CI (-3.29 to -1.46)
3rd
t(777.56) = -5.36, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.89, 95% CI (-3.48 to -1.61)
dbas_expectation
1st
t(571.26) = -1.17, p = 0.243, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-0.76 to 0.19)
2st
t(707.31) = -5.52, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.99, 95% CI (-2.08 to -0.99)
3rd
t(727.49) = -5.57, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 1.02, 95% CI (-2.13 to -1.02)
dbas_medication
1st
t(571.22) = 0.39, p = 0.695, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.36 to 0.54)
2st
t(707.27) = -2.21, p = 0.027, Cohen d = 0.40, 95% CI (-1.08 to -0.07)
3rd
t(727.46) = -2.90, p = 0.004, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-1.29 to -0.25)
psas_somatic
1st
t(525.96) = 0.62, p = 0.533, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-0.10 to 0.19)
2st
t(664.91) = -3.25, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.63, 95% CI (-0.42 to -0.10)
3rd
t(685.77) = -2.41, p = 0.016, Cohen d = 0.48, 95% CI (-0.36 to -0.04)
psas_cognitive
1st
t(562.59) = 1.10, p = 0.270, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.08 to 0.28)
2st
t(699.96) = -3.28, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.60, 95% CI (-0.54 to -0.13)
3rd
t(720.38) = -3.01, p = 0.003, Cohen d = 0.56, 95% CI (-0.52 to -0.11)
psqi_global
1st
t(612.94) = 0.87, p = 0.386, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.37 to 0.95)
2st
t(738.61) = -4.07, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.69, 95% CI (-2.33 to -0.81)
3rd
t(757.15) = -5.47, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.95, 95% CI (-2.93 to -1.38)
mic_attention
1st
t(548.27) = 1.52, p = 0.130, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.04 to 0.28)
2st
t(687.07) = -1.39, p = 0.165, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-0.30 to 0.05)
3rd
t(707.78) = -2.85, p = 0.004, Cohen d = 0.54, 95% CI (-0.44 to -0.08)
mic_executive
1st
t(526.25) = 0.82, p = 0.415, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.09 to 0.23)
2st
t(665.22) = -1.00, p = 0.318, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-0.27 to 0.09)
3rd
t(686.07) = -2.16, p = 0.031, Cohen d = 0.43, 95% CI (-0.39 to -0.02)
mic_memory
1st
t(506.60) = 0.81, p = 0.417, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.09 to 0.22)
2st
t(643.33) = -2.33, p = 0.020, Cohen d = 0.47, 95% CI (-0.39 to -0.03)
3rd
t(663.96) = -1.69, p = 0.091, Cohen d = 0.35, 95% CI (-0.33 to 0.02)
nb_pcs
1st
t(507.93) = -0.15, p = 0.882, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-1.97 to 1.69)
2st
t(644.89) = 2.52, p = 0.012, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (0.58 to 4.66)
3rd
t(665.55) = 2.91, p = 0.004, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (0.99 to 5.13)
nb_mcs
1st
t(538.06) = 0.08, p = 0.938, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-2.06 to 2.23)
2st
t(677.26) = 2.98, p = 0.003, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (1.24 to 6.07)
3rd
t(698.08) = 3.80, p = 0.000, Cohen d = -0.73, 95% CI (2.29 to 7.20)
Within treatment group
isi
1st vs 2st
t(595.81) = -14.89, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 1.91, 95% CI (-6.14 to -4.71)
1st vs 3rd
t(597.49) = -15.81, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 2.05, 95% CI (-6.56 to -5.11)
who
1st vs 2st
t(572.45) = 6.26, p = 0.000, Cohen d = -0.81, 95% CI (1.46 to 2.80)
1st vs 3rd
t(573.19) = 7.41, p = 0.000, Cohen d = -0.98, 95% CI (1.88 to 3.24)
phq
1st vs 2st
t(557.92) = -6.60, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.86, 95% CI (-3.26 to -1.76)
1st vs 3rd
t(558.30) = -7.98, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 1.06, 95% CI (-3.84 to -2.33)
gad
1st vs 2st
t(559.90) = -6.44, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.84, 95% CI (-3.28 to -1.75)
1st vs 3rd
t(560.32) = -7.49, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 1.00, 95% CI (-3.74 to -2.19)
wsas
1st vs 2st
t(564.96) = -4.75, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.62, 95% CI (-5.33 to -2.21)
1st vs 3rd
t(565.49) = -6.26, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.83, 95% CI (-6.62 to -3.45)
shps_arousal
1st vs 2st
t(586.16) = -10.03, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 1.29, 95% CI (-0.80 to -0.54)
1st vs 3rd
t(587.38) = -11.52, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 1.51, 95% CI (-0.92 to -0.65)
shps_schedule
1st vs 2st
t(560.99) = -6.50, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.85, 95% CI (-0.58 to -0.31)
1st vs 3rd
t(561.43) = -8.02, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 1.06, 95% CI (-0.69 to -0.42)
shps_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(574.84) = -3.81, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.49, 95% CI (-0.33 to -0.11)
1st vs 3rd
t(575.64) = -5.54, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.73, 95% CI (-0.44 to -0.21)
shps_environment
1st vs 2st
t(573.73) = -2.11, p = 0.071, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-0.28 to -0.01)
1st vs 3rd
t(574.50) = -4.61, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.61, 95% CI (-0.45 to -0.18)
dbas_consequence
1st vs 2st
t(575.93) = -9.05, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 1.17, 95% CI (-1.76 to -1.13)
1st vs 3rd
t(576.77) = -12.14, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 1.60, 95% CI (-2.29 to -1.65)
dbas_worry
1st vs 2st
t(597.41) = -10.82, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 1.38, 95% CI (-4.66 to -3.23)
1st vs 3rd
t(599.18) = -12.76, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 1.65, 95% CI (-5.44 to -3.99)
dbas_expectation
1st vs 2st
t(578.78) = -7.97, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 1.03, 95% CI (-1.98 to -1.20)
1st vs 3rd
t(579.72) = -10.15, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 1.33, 95% CI (-2.45 to -1.66)
dbas_medication
1st vs 2st
t(578.77) = -1.59, p = 0.223, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-0.66 to 0.07)
1st vs 3rd
t(579.71) = -2.91, p = 0.007, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-0.92 to -0.18)
psas_somatic
1st vs 2st
t(565.90) = -3.01, p = 0.005, Cohen d = 0.39, 95% CI (-0.27 to -0.06)
1st vs 3rd
t(566.46) = -4.23, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.56, 95% CI (-0.34 to -0.12)
psas_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(576.45) = -8.80, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 1.14, 95% CI (-0.78 to -0.50)
1st vs 3rd
t(577.30) = -10.47, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 1.38, 95% CI (-0.91 to -0.63)
psqi_global
1st vs 2st
t(589.30) = -10.88, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 1.40, 95% CI (-3.75 to -2.60)
1st vs 3rd
t(590.65) = -12.71, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 1.66, 95% CI (-4.34 to -3.18)
mic_attention
1st vs 2st
t(572.46) = -4.27, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.55, 95% CI (-0.39 to -0.15)
1st vs 3rd
t(573.19) = -5.52, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.73, 95% CI (-0.48 to -0.23)
mic_executive
1st vs 2st
t(565.99) = -3.11, p = 0.004, Cohen d = 0.41, 95% CI (-0.31 to -0.07)
1st vs 3rd
t(566.55) = -5.09, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.67, 95% CI (-0.44 to -0.20)
mic_memory
1st vs 2st
t(559.84) = -4.18, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.55, 95% CI (-0.36 to -0.13)
1st vs 3rd
t(560.25) = -4.78, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.63, 95% CI (-0.40 to -0.17)
nb_pcs
1st vs 2st
t(560.27) = 2.80, p = 0.011, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (0.56 to 3.21)
1st vs 3rd
t(560.69) = 3.53, p = 0.001, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (1.07 to 3.76)
nb_mcs
1st vs 2st
t(569.51) = 6.61, p = 0.000, Cohen d = -0.86, 95% CI (3.92 to 7.23)
1st vs 3rd
t(570.16) = 8.11, p = 0.000, Cohen d = -1.07, 95% CI (5.25 to 8.61)
Within control group
isi
1st vs 2st
t(542.71) = -7.61, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.86, 95% CI (-3.09 to -1.82)
1st vs 3rd
t(548.52) = -8.57, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 1.00, 95% CI (-3.49 to -2.19)
who
1st vs 2st
t(530.54) = 2.44, p = 0.030, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (0.14 to 1.32)
1st vs 3rd
t(534.13) = 3.01, p = 0.005, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (0.32 to 1.53)
phq
1st vs 2st
t(523.50) = -2.34, p = 0.039, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-1.43 to -0.12)
1st vs 3rd
t(526.07) = -1.87, p = 0.123, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-1.32 to 0.03)
gad
1st vs 2st
t(524.45) = -1.29, p = 0.396, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-1.11 to 0.23)
1st vs 3rd
t(527.14) = -1.67, p = 0.191, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-1.27 to 0.10)
wsas
1st vs 2st
t(526.87) = -1.18, p = 0.478, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-2.18 to 0.55)
1st vs 3rd
t(529.91) = -0.16, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.52 to 1.29)
shps_arousal
1st vs 2st
t(537.52) = -3.30, p = 0.002, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-0.31 to -0.08)
1st vs 3rd
t(542.30) = -3.60, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.42, 95% CI (-0.34 to -0.10)
shps_schedule
1st vs 2st
t(524.96) = -1.68, p = 0.188, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-0.22 to 0.02)
1st vs 3rd
t(527.73) = -2.16, p = 0.062, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-0.25 to -0.01)
shps_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(531.73) = 0.48, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.08 to 0.12)
1st vs 3rd
t(535.51) = 0.23, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.09 to 0.11)
shps_environment
1st vs 2st
t(531.17) = -0.97, p = 0.662, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-0.18 to 0.06)
1st vs 3rd
t(534.86) = -0.97, p = 0.668, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-0.18 to 0.06)
dbas_consequence
1st vs 2st
t(532.27) = -2.39, p = 0.034, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-0.61 to -0.06)
1st vs 3rd
t(536.14) = -4.55, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-0.94 to -0.37)
dbas_worry
1st vs 2st
t(543.60) = -3.81, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.43, 95% CI (-1.87 to -0.60)
1st vs 3rd
t(549.60) = -5.50, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.64, 95% CI (-2.48 to -1.17)
dbas_expectation
1st vs 2st
t(533.71) = -1.95, p = 0.103, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-0.69 to 0.00)
1st vs 3rd
t(537.82) = -4.24, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.50, 95% CI (-1.12 to -0.41)
dbas_medication
1st vs 2st
t(533.71) = 2.23, p = 0.052, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (0.04 to 0.69)
1st vs 3rd
t(537.82) = 1.81, p = 0.142, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.03 to 0.64)
psas_somatic
1st vs 2st
t(527.33) = 3.03, p = 0.005, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (0.05 to 0.24)
1st vs 3rd
t(530.43) = 0.20, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-0.09 to 0.11)
psas_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(532.53) = -3.20, p = 0.003, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-0.33 to -0.08)
1st vs 3rd
t(536.44) = -5.47, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.64, 95% CI (-0.49 to -0.23)
psqi_global
1st vs 2st
t(539.17) = -5.09, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.58, 95% CI (-1.82 to -0.81)
1st vs 3rd
t(544.27) = -4.96, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.58, 95% CI (-1.84 to -0.79)
mic_attention
1st vs 2st
t(530.54) = -0.39, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-0.13 to 0.09)
1st vs 3rd
t(534.13) = 0.54, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.08 to 0.14)
mic_executive
1st vs 2st
t(527.37) = -0.62, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-0.14 to 0.07)
1st vs 3rd
t(530.48) = -0.91, p = 0.730, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-0.16 to 0.06)
mic_memory
1st vs 2st
t(524.42) = 0.62, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-0.07 to 0.13)
1st vs 3rd
t(527.11) = -1.19, p = 0.471, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-0.17 to 0.04)
nb_pcs
1st vs 2st
t(524.62) = -1.48, p = 0.281, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-2.03 to 0.29)
1st vs 3rd
t(527.34) = -1.29, p = 0.394, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-1.98 to 0.41)
nb_mcs
1st vs 2st
t(529.09) = 2.71, p = 0.014, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (0.55 to 3.46)
1st vs 3rd
t(532.45) = 2.99, p = 0.006, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (0.78 to 3.76)
Plot
Clinical significance
| T1 | T2 | T3 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
outcome | control1 | treatment1 | p-value2 | control1 | treatment1 | p-value2 | control1 | treatment1 | p-value2 |
isi | 89% | 85% | 0.206 | 61% | 31% | 0.000 | 56% | 29% | 0.000 |
psqi | 96% | 97% | 0.586 | 89% | 74% | 0.003 | 89% | 65% | 0.000 |
phq | 31% | 38% | 0.148 | 32% | 19% | 0.019 | 30% | 18% | 0.035 |
gad | 30% | 33% | 0.494 | 26% | 17% | 0.061 | 27% | 16% | 0.045 |
wsas | 74% | 72% | 0.721 | 68% | 55% | 0.041 | 69% | 49% | 0.001 |
1% | |||||||||
2Pearson's Chi-squared test | |||||||||